This year’s CSCMP Annual Global Conference took place in Denver, Colorado. It has become a good tradition that some of the leading journals of our field announce their best paper awards during the CSCMP’s Supply Chain Management Educators’ Conference, the academic part of the CSCMP Conference (see my previous post from Atlanta last year). The best paper published in the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management is The Impact of Individual Debiasing Efforts on Financial Decision Effectiveness in the Supplier Selection Process by Lutz Kaufmann, Craig R. Carter and Christian Buhrmann. The Bernard J. LaLonde Best Paper Award (best paper published in the Journal of Business Logistics) goes to The Roles of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Logistics Outsourcing Relationships by Adriana Rossiter Hofer, A. Michael Knemeyer and Paul R. Murphy. The quality of these papers has certainly raised the bar for our own manuscripts. Thanks to Christian F. Durach for sending me these entries from Denver. (part 2/2)
Kaufmann, L., Carter, C.R., & Buhrmann, C. (2012). The Impact of Individual Debiasing Efforts on Financial Decision Effectiveness in the Supplier Selection Process. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42 (5), 411-433 DOI: 10.1108/09600031211246492
Rossiter Hofer, A., Knemeyer, A.M., & Murphy, P.R. (2012). The Roles of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Logistics Outsourcing Relationships. Journal of Business Logistics, 33 (3), 196-209 DOI: 10.1111/j.2158-1592.2012.01052.x
Recently, I discovered an article by Ahuja (2000), Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study, which was published in Administrative Science Quarterly. It contains a framework that “relates three aspects of a firm’s ego network—direct ties, indirect ties, and structural holes (disconnections between a firm’s partners)—to the firm’s subsequent innovation output.” The author suggests that “[t]he more direct ties that a firm maintains, the greater the firm’s subsequent innovation output”. Similarly, he suggests that “[t]he greater a firm’s number of indirect ties, the greater the subsequent innovation output of the firm”. Here, the impact of indirect ties “will be moderated by the level of the firm’s direct ties”. These hypotheses are supported by the results of a longitudinal study. Two competing hypotheses are presented concerning the effect of increasing structural holes on innovation. The empirical results indicate that this effect is negative. Ahuja’s article is among the most-cited ASQ articles.
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (3), 425-455 DOI: 10.2307/2667105